I realize the chance of the bill getting through the Senate with any reasonable cost containment measures is nil, so I guess they are skeptical of the much vaunted Public Option getting through.
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20091228/D9CS98AG0.htmlBut I feel like the House, a third of the legislative body, the House of the people more attached to the people's needs, should have some say-so in these matter, and not be totally neutered.
So I propose them getting rid of the mandate for insurance. I'm not sure how folks are going to buy insurance without money anyway. You get credits, on your taxes, but that assumes you've got thousands every month to spend on insurance first, to even get them back. Or perhaps there is some kind of device to link up your insurance, or maybe I just have no idea how it works. But I've never liked 'forcing' people to buy their product, as the 'solution' to the health care problem. I think additionally it'll create further problems in our economy, funneling money into insurance companies that were going to rent, utilities, products, and services, that will no longer get them.
So, what does the house do? Get rid of the mandate, but still offer the credits. You'll save money, as many won't bother. Sure, you won't cover as many people by the forcing method, but you can make some other changes. Redefine what Emergencies are. The way it is now, you've got to be bleeding, or unconscious before an ER can treat you. Change that to where ERs, or perhaps general practitioners, are enabled to diagnose you, and if you've got something like Breast, prostate, or any other cancer, that's terminal, or need a heart bypass, or some other procedure, then you allow hospitals to treat, as they do now, when you are stabbed, or shot. Then reimburse them, as we do now, a reasonable amount for the procedures.
This fills the gap where it needs, it "Offers" a program for those who want to accept the "credits" for insurance, and it assures that people can at least have the minimal treatment, for all emergencies which their lives have left them unable to contend with by income, or insurance.
This plan would be cheaper, and would rid the bill of the most onerous part of the bill, the forced buy-in, that most of Obama's base doesn't like.
I'm one of the rare liberals that feels like if you are provided insurance by your employer that maybe you should pay taxes, but I definitely prefer the financing method provided for by the House. Either people who get insurance from their employers should pay, or the people who don't should be compensated for the fact that they DON'T get those tax benefits for insurance they buy.
It'll be a better bill, a more palatable bill, and it gives the house something to do, without them inserting the public option that is so loathed by the Democrats who seem bribed by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Still, in all of this, it is so sick that a few rich people in corporate America get away with screwing all Americans in this way. There is nothing that forgives these democrats, and we need to evict these pus-cells from our party through the primary process. If a republican wins, so be it. At least we won't be corrupted, and maybe next time they'll actually fight for us, the real people, instead of huge companies, at least until money corrupts them absolutely, which it inevitably will.